So as I understand it your family has come to the conclusion that your wedding needs to be on Saturday afternoon, have copious amounts of food and booze, be where they want it to be and ....do they approve of anything?

Have a Friday morning wedding. If they show they show if they don't they don't and enjoy your wedding. At the end of the day that's more important than their complaints.

So as I understand it your family has come to the conclusion that your wedding needs to be on Saturday afternoon, have copious amounts of food and booze, be where they want it to be and ....do they approve of anything?

Have a Friday morning wedding. If they show they show if they don't they don't and enjoy your wedding. At the end of the day that's more important than their complaints.

BTW No one has mentioned this I think. The shocked reaction may be more about "how will there be booze and dancing at 11 am" then "CRUD MONKEYS!! now I have to take off work!"

OP! Since some people would fee cheated out of a bigger reception if they took time off from work and didn't recieve dinner, booze, and dancing, I would be explicit in your invite if you do decide to have an afternoon reception with a light refreshment buffet afterwards. So if a 2pm mass you can state someything like Join us for an afternoon reception from 3-5. And in the corner someone where with the dress code you can add light refreshment buffet to be served.

Then people can decide if they'd feel cheated out of greater hospitality if they took time off from work. 2-3 hr afternoon receptions were pretty common in my area so it wouldn't bother me. But if the wedding is being held where the majority expect a full evening of entertainment it would be good to give a heads up.

So question for those who would have a hard time with it, is it the time of day that's the biggest problem? Because, we could probably start the mass a little later in the day (although I'd have to check with fiancées pastor about that, I don't know for sure), would say a 2 or 3pm mass with a reception to follow be as hard to get to as an 11am mass with a reception to follow? We don't want to go to late because if we do it during the dinner hour, fiancées family will expect alcohol and dancing, and we can't afford the alcohol and I'm not sure the buffet lunch we have planned will be enough for dinner.

Logistically spekaing, it probably wouldn't make that much difference. But it would mentally make a difference. Illogical, I know.

Though I'm w/ wolfie--it I were local, a 2pm wedding would be a day-killer. I wouldn't feel I had the morning for anything, nor would I have the evening.

I agree on the bolded. It probably has to do with the perception (whether true or not) that it might mean the difference for some guests between leaving early vs. having to take the day off.

On the second point, I don't get the day killer part, though. But that's because I think of 2 pm weddings as cake and punch, and these don't generally last long. People can leave by 4:30.

OP, I agree you're overthinking it. It sounds like you've made a lot of accommodations so far, and at some point, your guests become rude in second guessing everything.

For me, personally, I like the idea of a late morning wedding, followed by a luncheon reception. That gives me the opportunity to take my nicely dressed up self out for a lovely dinner later with friends or family.

Probably the worst wedding I've been to, in terms of timing, was an outdoor wedding in the summer. The bride wanted it outdoors but didn't want to be too hot so the wedding started at 6:00 pm. And then there was a big gap as the bridal party did their pictures. Then they did the speeches and the first dance when they arrived. We didn't eat until 10:00 pm!

It was a lovely wedding but the timing left a lot to be desired.

Logged

After cleaning out my Dad's house, I have this advice: If you haven't used it in a year, throw it out!!!!.

OP, I don't think you're being rude by hvaing your wedding on a Friday.

2-3pm wedding says dinner reception afterwards, to me. And if I had taken the day off work for a 3pm wedding, which I'd have to do, I'd feel a bit ripped off to have to do that and have the event finished in a couple of hours with just cake. From my perspective, I'd prefer it to be earlier and have lunch.

However, I think you're over-thinking a bit. You've made a lot of concessions for your guests. I'm a big believer in trying to make things easy for your guests, but I think you're doing the best you can in the circumstances. So have your wedding at the time that's best for you and let people come who can make it.

I wouldn't expect a 2 or 3 pm ceremony to be followed by a dinner reception, no matter what day of the week it was.

A lot of Catholic weddings in my area are held in the afternoon, as the church is usually needed after 4 pm for Mass. Most have a formal dinner reception afterwards. The timing seems to work out okay, except that dinner might be at 5:30. But if you figure that for a 2 pm wedding, many people will eat lunch at noon, spend from 12:30-1 pm getting ready, then drive to the church allowing enough time to park and get good seats, spend an hour in the church from 2-3, drive to the reception, wait for the wedding party to arrive, etc., it's probably been 5 or more hours since they have eaten if dinner is served at 5:30.

I've also been to 11 am weddings that were followed by a dinner reception, with dancing, at 1 pm. An hour for the wedding Mass, then drive time to the reception, brings you up to 12:45 or 1 pm.

I'm not catholic, so I'm wondering how long Mass is? If it is short- say, half and hour, and you can expect to be feeding people by 3:00 and out of the venue by 5:30 then a 2:00 time would be far better than 11:00 for me personally. If it is any longer than that though, and you would be feeding people around 4:00 to 5:00 then I as a guest would be expecting dinner and cake with alcohol and dancing to follow. Again, personally, if it were me, I would go for a 1:00 mass/wedding, followed by a 3:00 tea/cake ceremony. Then guests could rise at their leisure, get spiffed up, have a light lunch, go to the wedding and have a nice snack after, then be home for a late supper or make plans to go out after. Nobody would be expecting a full meal, the workers would still be able to get in half a day (the locals at any rate) and it's early enough that people wouldn't be expecting an open bar.

For me, personally, I like the idea of a late morning wedding, followed by a luncheon reception. That gives me the opportunity to take my nicely dressed up self out for a lovely dinner later with friends or family.

Probably the worst wedding I've been to, in terms of timing, was an outdoor wedding in the summer. The bride wanted it outdoors but didn't want to be too hot so the wedding started at 6:00 pm. And then there was a big gap as the bridal party did their pictures. Then they did the speeches and the first dance when they arrived. We didn't eat until 10:00 pm!

It was a lovely wedding but the timing left a lot to be desired.

I agree with Outdoor Girl.

I can't say that I know anyone that would have a real issue getting a weekday off to attend a wedding, go shopping, what have you.

I would expect a 2 or 3 p.m. ceremony to have a short gap, then dinner.

My 4 p.m. ceremony, followed by dinner, was a bit early for some people, but too late to not serve it, too.

Oh dear. Don't come to a wedding in Australia then! The norm here is:

2/3pm ceremony lasting maybe an hour.

Photos, some on site, some at other destinations

6pm reception start.

Guests are on their own in between. Usually there is nothing provided unless the ceremony and reception are at the same venue - then the gap would be shorter (no need for travel time) and drinks and finger food provided.

But if there's a venue change its normal for the guests to have a few hours to amuse themselves in between. Coffee shops or pubs are common hangouts.